Back
G.N.RAY, K.RAMASWAMY
Dalpat Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Prahlad Singh – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the judgment in question was explicitly overruled by the Supreme Court of India. The Court set aside the decision of the High Court and confirmed the order of the trial Court, indicating a clear reversal of the previous appellate decision. The Court also clarified that any observations made earlier should not be considered relevant at the trial on the merits, emphasizing that their ruling was a decision on the prima facie case and the appropriateness of granting or denying injunctions pending the trial. Therefore, the judgment in this case is indeed overruled.
JUDGMENT
K. RAMASWAMY, J.:—Leave granted.
2. Sri S. K. Jain, on his application, is discharged.
3. Heard the counsel on either side. This is the fourth round of litigation relating to the same subject matter. On June 14, 1979 the first appellant claimed to have entered into an agreement to purchase the residential house situated in Jaipur for a consideration of Rs. 51,000/-. He laid the suit for specific performance and the suit was decreed ex parte. On August 10, 1983, the sale deed was executed through court. On April 29. 1984, the respondents wife filed Suit No. 83 of 1984 and also sought for temporary injunction from dispossession. In May 1984, the Trial Court rejected the application for ad interim injunction which was confirmed, on appeal, by the High Court on July 14, 1987. There- after the suit was got dismissed for non- prosecution. The first appellant filed Execution Application No. 6 /85 in which the respondent filed five unsuccessful objections. The first was dismissed on March 4,1987. The second one on December 4, 1987, which was confirmed on revision by the High Court on January 20, 1988. The third one on October 4, 1987 and fourth one on January 17, 1989. Even thereaft
No cases identified as overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law. All references consistently treat cases (primarily Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719) as good law, with no explicit negative treatment such as "overruled," "reversed," "abrogated," "bad law," or equivalent phrases indicating invalidity.
The vast majority of references (nearly all entries) treat **Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719 / AIR 1993 SC 276** positively, relying on it as authoritative precedent for principles of temporary injunctions (e.g., prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury). Examples:
Mangalam Cement Ltd. VS The Goods Superviser, Western Railway, Kota - 1992 0 Supreme(Raj) 841: Cited alongside other cases without negative treatment.
Azad Ali VS Housefed & Others - 1993 0 Supreme(Gau) 29: "Sarma has placed reliance on a recent decision of the Apex Court in Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh."
Mukhash Sampradaya VS Birash Ch. Das and others - 1993 0 Supreme(Gau) 110: Quoted para-5 approvingly: "the Supreme Court pointed out inter alia as follows."
Mohan Lal VS Mohan Singh - 1994 0 Supreme(P&H) 854: Cited as precedent.
Maria Rosa Costa Dias and others VS Comunidade of Chicolna and others - 1995 0 Supreme(Bom) 280: "The Apex Court in the judgment supra repeating the observations made in (Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh)."
VIJAYA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS BIKASH CHANDRA DEB - 1995 0 Supreme(Cal) 208: Relied upon as authority.
R. C. Sood Co. VS R. Kant And Company - 1995 0 Supreme(P&H) 1059: "relying upon a decision of Supreme Court in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh."
And dozens more (e.g., VEETRAG HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED VS GUJARAT STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED - 1995 0 Supreme(Guj) 461, D. T. T. D. C. VS D. R. MEHRA AND SONS. - 1996 0 Supreme(Del) 290, COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY VS K. RINZING - 1996 0 Supreme(Sikk) 6, KANRAJ KHATRI VS NATHURAM JAIN - 1996 0 Supreme(MP) 658, etc.), all using phrases like "relied upon," "held thus," "laid down," "reiterated," "well settled," "principles laid down," "cardinal principles," confirming positive treatment as binding/good law.
Minor additional cases (e.g., Ltd., 1990 (Supp) S.C.C. 727 in Mangalam Cement Ltd. VS The Goods Superviser, Western Railway, Kota - 1992 0 Supreme(Raj) 841; Sanganer Cooperative Housing-Society Ltd., 1986 R.L.R. 1018 in Mangalam Cement Ltd. VS The Goods Superviser, Western Railway, Kota - 1992 0 Supreme(Raj) 841) are cited alongside without distinction, implying approval/following.
**Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh** in PUNIT BERIWALA VS SUVA SANYAL - 1997 0 Supreme(Cal) 282: "Prahlad Singh reported in 1992 (1) SCC 719 has been rendered per incuriam and, thus, not binding on us." This is the only instance of negative nuance ("per incuriam," meaning decided in ignorance of law, rendering it non-binding), but it is an argument by counsel, not a holding. The case is still cited extensively elsewhere as good law, so not elevated to "bad law."
**Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh** in Madan Lal VS Nemi Chand - 2001 0 Supreme(Raj) 704: "The facts of the above case are having no relevancy to the present case." Distinguishes on facts, but does not question validity.
**Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh** in Rohini Sarma and Ors. VS Sakuntala Devi and Ors. - 1998 0 Supreme(Gau) 131: Cited "for the meaning of 'prima facie case'" in a specific context, implying limited application but positive reliance.
None. All treatments are clear: overwhelmingly positive reliance on Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh as leading precedent on injunction principles. Isolated "per incuriam" argument (PUNIT BERIWALA VS SUVA SANYAL - 1997 0 Supreme(Cal) 282) is not adopted as a holding and contradicted by pervasive positive citations. Minor cases like those in (e.g., 1990 (Supp) S.C.C. 727) lack sufficient context for independent categorization but are not negatively treated.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
